Posts by Joey Jo-Jo

44

Not Getting Over It! Ex-JWs Face Residual Psychological, Physical Damage

by TMS in

jw
friends

this is not an essay or "my story".

these are just a few personal observations from someone who lived, breathed and.

slept the jw religion for over 50 years.

Joey Jo-Jo

I find it all funny in a dark way, we thought to be the lucky ones yet the joke was about us, all the hours preaching, all the bad memories at school, having strong psychological phobias without even knowing, being nice to everyone while being treated like dirt, all for nothing, god was never there and I was part of that joke, then liberated but kicked to the curve with friends I care still in delusion waiting for their god to kill %98.9 of the earth population. I would be lying if I didn't say that I hate the gb, a man with a conviction is a hard man to change they say.

78

Atheism or Agnosticism, which one is correct?

by Joey Jo-Jo in

this has been bugging me for a while, and while i dont want to turn this into something about semantics i think that we should quickly define what an agnostic and atheists are.. richard dawkins defines 7 different types of atheist ranging from weak to militant atheists, but along these definitions there appears one definition with a strong resemblance to agnosticism.. to me an agnostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in deity/deities, but there are those who define agnostics as a ignorant who simply just don't care or don't have the intelligence to come to sound conclusion.. an atheist can be a person who disbelieves in a deity/deities based on the current mathematical and scientific understandings of the universe, as well as understandings that can refute certain religions such as the strong influence of protestantism christianity in america.. .

from here i will refer deity as anything ranging jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we dont know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be.. an argument that can be used about a deity is -we cannot prove nor disprove that god exists- this is referred to as a null hypothesis, an assumption that we cannot create a hypothesis to prove or disprove this deity.

this to me is agnosticism and is more correct than the idea of atheism.

Joey Jo-Jo

But bohm, we don't know what X is, I thought I made it very clear even if I didn't make it before (which I believe I did) - I will know refer this deity or deities as the one/s assuming that created this darkness we call space, and that created the cosmos and set them in motion, I will call my god/s that derived from an assumption as ? (Question mark).

X has never revelead itself, we don't even know if X exists, the only methods of identify X is through science and maths and yet there is a lot to uncover, remember that you are talking to an agnostic and not a theist, it is your claim that God does not exist, and I am not talking about the bible all I am showing is that your claim (atheists) can also be irrational.

Assuming we dont know X therefore X does not exist is circular reasoning, another fallacy

A null hypothesis is simple that, null, zero, nada, yes it can be disproven but then it's no longer null.

94

What's the JW reaction to new 16 page mags????

by diamondiiz in

if you've been to the meeting when the letter was read, what was jw reaction????

just curious if it was just another sign that the end is nearer or did any wake up for a second to realize the corporation is downsizing due to costs..

Joey Jo-Jo

One elder who does not know that I have left said to his wife about the announcement that they are reducing the size of their literature because most are using watchtower.com online facilities.

78

Atheism or Agnosticism, which one is correct?

by Joey Jo-Jo in

this has been bugging me for a while, and while i dont want to turn this into something about semantics i think that we should quickly define what an agnostic and atheists are.. richard dawkins defines 7 different types of atheist ranging from weak to militant atheists, but along these definitions there appears one definition with a strong resemblance to agnosticism.. to me an agnostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in deity/deities, but there are those who define agnostics as a ignorant who simply just don't care or don't have the intelligence to come to sound conclusion.. an atheist can be a person who disbelieves in a deity/deities based on the current mathematical and scientific understandings of the universe, as well as understandings that can refute certain religions such as the strong influence of protestantism christianity in america.. .

from here i will refer deity as anything ranging jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we dont know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be.. an argument that can be used about a deity is -we cannot prove nor disprove that god exists- this is referred to as a null hypothesis, an assumption that we cannot create a hypothesis to prove or disprove this deity.

this to me is agnosticism and is more correct than the idea of atheism.

Joey Jo-Jo

Furthermore LouBelle here are some of the definitions available online.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic

1 a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. 2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic 1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or thenonexistence of God or a god 2 : a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics> http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/agnostic a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. As you can see there are some variences, my variance is one of the definitions, the fact that people can generalise agnostics is wrong, and also that one word can mean similar but different things is also wrong. This is what Carl Sagan said and what I consider agnosticism: "An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed". Source - Wakin, Edward (May 1981). [www.uscatholic.org "God and Carl Sagan: Is the Cosmos Big Enough for Both of Them?"]. U.S. Catholic : 19-24 . Retrieved 7 April 2012 . "I'm agnostic." Source - Head, Tom. "Conversations with Carl". Skeptic 13 (1): 32–38. Excerpted in Head, Tom, ed. (2006). University of Mississippi Press. ISBN 1-57806-736-7..

78

Atheism or Agnosticism, which one is correct?

by Joey Jo-Jo in

this has been bugging me for a while, and while i dont want to turn this into something about semantics i think that we should quickly define what an agnostic and atheists are.. richard dawkins defines 7 different types of atheist ranging from weak to militant atheists, but along these definitions there appears one definition with a strong resemblance to agnosticism.. to me an agnostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in deity/deities, but there are those who define agnostics as a ignorant who simply just don't care or don't have the intelligence to come to sound conclusion.. an atheist can be a person who disbelieves in a deity/deities based on the current mathematical and scientific understandings of the universe, as well as understandings that can refute certain religions such as the strong influence of protestantism christianity in america.. .

from here i will refer deity as anything ranging jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we dont know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be.. an argument that can be used about a deity is -we cannot prove nor disprove that god exists- this is referred to as a null hypothesis, an assumption that we cannot create a hypothesis to prove or disprove this deity.

this to me is agnosticism and is more correct than the idea of atheism.

Joey Jo-Jo

bohm: Regarding logical fallacies:

You wrote - Secondly I find myself doubting if you really believe what you are writing. For instance, are you truly agnostic with respect to the flying spaghetti monster, or do you as I, believe it is a mock-god made up by an atheist? Do you really believe we cannot know if we will live on the slopes of a beer volcano near the stripper factory when we die, or do you believe that is highly implausible?

I wrote - My logical fallacy senses are tingling, proof to me that God does not exist so I can answer your questions :)

I’m reply you wrote - What is the logical fallacy? I am simply asking you if you are an agnostic with respect to the flying spaghetti monster. Your previous statements would imply it since you directly said we could define God as the flying spaghetti monster and you believed agnosticism is the default position on the existence of God.

First, you were not just asking me if I am an agnostic with respect to the flying spaghetti monster but also " Do you really believe we cannot know if we will live on the slopes of a beer volcano near the stripper factory when we die, or do you believe that is highly implausible? "

Second, you quoted me out of context, this is what I wrote - From here I will refer deity as anything ranging Jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we don’t know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be. To elaborate, I used the word deity as a universal not prove that all gods simultaneously exist or don't, but so the argument I proposed does not get dragged on to external factors such as the bible, which religion is true? Which god is true? Etc.

So this argument does not get pushed aside, I will know refer this deity or deities as the one/s assuming that created this darkness we call space, and that created the cosmos and set them in motion, I will call my god/s that derived from an assumption as ? (Question mark).

The logical fallacies are:

Straw man - Misrepresenting my argument by taking it to extremes - Do you really believe we cannot know if we will live on the slopes of a beer volcano near the stripper factory when we die, or do you believe that is highly implausible? I would say most improbable but I wouldn't mind if it started to rain donuts, by my argument is in relevance of the unknown.

Abusive analogy - Once again, you indirectly insult me by what you wrote giving the readers the false impression that you are discussing the same argument while character assassinating my intelligence.

Analogical fallacy, secundrum quid and dicto simpliciter (they are all very similar) - Supposing that things similar in one respect must be similar in others, in this case not knowing if ? exists is the same as - Do you really believe we cannot know if we will live on the slopes of a beer vulcano near the stripper factory when we die, or do you believe that is highly implausible?

Begging the question - your conclusion seeks to be established.

Now on to null hypothesis, it's the first time that I have heard that a null hypothesis could also imply something which can be falsified. I don't follow, I know that null hypothesis is not only used in statistics I know that wiki at times are incorrect, but if you could quote me an academic book that says otherwise - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

WTWizard: Usually in debates, like the youtube channel atheistexperience 9 out of 10 they will say that there is not proof to believe in god (depending who they are talking to they could be referring to some deity in a book like genesis), therefore there is no reason to believe in ?

That's news to me, Satanists like Marilyn Mason don't believe in Satan, are spiritual Satanists different from Satanists?

DT wrote There is no need for the term agnosticism to fill in a gap between theism and atheism. Theism is a definite state of belief and atheism merely refers to those who don't have that belief, regardless of whether they lack belief or believe the opposite.

As I pointed out on my first post, there are many definitions for these words, here is 17 kinds of atheism - http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487 surprise surprise apparently agnosticism is also a form of atheism.

Agnosticism refers to a lack of knowledge rather than lack of belief. Therefore, it includes some theists and atheists. Thank you for pointing that out, but I would also go as far to say that both atheism and theism are beliefs, the fact is there is a lack of knowledge.

sabastious: as I wrote to the other person, prove to me that God does not exist, let's see who is the cop-out.

d0rkyd00d: If you don't believe that God exists then you are an atheist. I defined God in the top part of this same post. I personally have strong reasons not to believe in the bible therefore any religion that claims their god comes and is written in a man-made book is false, but I cannot say the same about Eastern Orthodoxy because they don't believe in the bible (although if I seek hard enough I'm sure I can find enough evidence to at least debunk their religion)

LouBelle: I cannot write Agnosticism is such and such because there many different understandings, and some agnostics might say that I am not even an agnostic, so I wrote To me an agnostic..., yes according to me this is what I think agnosticism should be, I don’t think I came of as arrogant, how else could I put it in words?

78

Atheism or Agnosticism, which one is correct?

by Joey Jo-Jo in

this has been bugging me for a while, and while i dont want to turn this into something about semantics i think that we should quickly define what an agnostic and atheists are.. richard dawkins defines 7 different types of atheist ranging from weak to militant atheists, but along these definitions there appears one definition with a strong resemblance to agnosticism.. to me an agnostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in deity/deities, but there are those who define agnostics as a ignorant who simply just don't care or don't have the intelligence to come to sound conclusion.. an atheist can be a person who disbelieves in a deity/deities based on the current mathematical and scientific understandings of the universe, as well as understandings that can refute certain religions such as the strong influence of protestantism christianity in america.. .

from here i will refer deity as anything ranging jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we dont know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be.. an argument that can be used about a deity is -we cannot prove nor disprove that god exists- this is referred to as a null hypothesis, an assumption that we cannot create a hypothesis to prove or disprove this deity.

this to me is agnosticism and is more correct than the idea of atheism.

Joey Jo-Jo

Phizzy: I hate labelling but it's important, these words are so weak and have been interchangeable, it's like the words brain wash and mind control used in the same manner yet mean completely different things, and maybe in 40 years’ time they will mean the same thing.

78

Atheism or Agnosticism, which one is correct?

by Joey Jo-Jo in

this has been bugging me for a while, and while i dont want to turn this into something about semantics i think that we should quickly define what an agnostic and atheists are.. richard dawkins defines 7 different types of atheist ranging from weak to militant atheists, but along these definitions there appears one definition with a strong resemblance to agnosticism.. to me an agnostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in deity/deities, but there are those who define agnostics as a ignorant who simply just don't care or don't have the intelligence to come to sound conclusion.. an atheist can be a person who disbelieves in a deity/deities based on the current mathematical and scientific understandings of the universe, as well as understandings that can refute certain religions such as the strong influence of protestantism christianity in america.. .

from here i will refer deity as anything ranging jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we dont know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be.. an argument that can be used about a deity is -we cannot prove nor disprove that god exists- this is referred to as a null hypothesis, an assumption that we cannot create a hypothesis to prove or disprove this deity.

this to me is agnosticism and is more correct than the idea of atheism.

Joey Jo-Jo

IsaacJ22 and bohm, yes i think it's important that we all explain what our definitions of agnostic and atheism mean (I already gave examples of some), when Bart Ehrman in a debate told his audience that he was an agnostic he also explained what his own definition of the word was so people wouldn't get it confused with another form of agnosticism. I really didn't want this to turn into something about semantics lol

bohm wrote "I do not feel compelled to accept the existence of any of the gods", ie. a 6 on the dawkins scale. It is not an expression of absolutely certainty.

Would it any any different if I said that I do feel compelled to accept the notion that something/s created the universe?

First and foremost i would suggest you use "default position" rather than null hypothesis since null hypothesis come with a lot of baggage from statistics where it is used in a different way than you use it here.

The principal can still be applied without the baggage (I hate statistics, the hardest course in my accounting degree). If you don't think it can I would like to know why.

Secondly i find myself doubting if you really believe what you are writing. For instance, are you truly agnostic with respect to the flying spaghetti monster, or do you as i, believe it is a mock-god made up by an atheist? Do you really believe we cannot know if we will live on the slopes of a beer vulcano near the stripper factory when we die, or do you believe that is highly implausible?

My logical fallacy senses are tingling, proof to me that God does not exist so I can answer your questions :)

78

Atheism or Agnosticism, which one is correct?

by Joey Jo-Jo in

this has been bugging me for a while, and while i dont want to turn this into something about semantics i think that we should quickly define what an agnostic and atheists are.. richard dawkins defines 7 different types of atheist ranging from weak to militant atheists, but along these definitions there appears one definition with a strong resemblance to agnosticism.. to me an agnostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in deity/deities, but there are those who define agnostics as a ignorant who simply just don't care or don't have the intelligence to come to sound conclusion.. an atheist can be a person who disbelieves in a deity/deities based on the current mathematical and scientific understandings of the universe, as well as understandings that can refute certain religions such as the strong influence of protestantism christianity in america.. .

from here i will refer deity as anything ranging jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we dont know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be.. an argument that can be used about a deity is -we cannot prove nor disprove that god exists- this is referred to as a null hypothesis, an assumption that we cannot create a hypothesis to prove or disprove this deity.

this to me is agnosticism and is more correct than the idea of atheism.

Joey Jo-Jo

ziddina:thx, I also share your view.

Chariklo:That's true, one self proclaimed agnostic being Carl Sagan, but there are intelligent people of all beliefs like some of the founding fathers of science believe in God, so for the purpose of this disussion lets disregard who is more intelligent and focus just on the argument at hand, but thanks.

ohiocowboy: I would re-word it - Which belief is more rational and more logical?

nicolaou wrote Agnosticism is a woolly headed cop-out when it comes to god. Do you have a belief that god is real? You are a theist. Do you lack that positive belief? You are an atheist.

How exactly is it a cop out? Can you prove that god exists(all gods, any gods, gods we dont even know of)? Can you prove that God does not exist? If you can not then you are an agnostic. The word Atheist is not the same word used in the 1980's for people who disbelieved in the possible of there being any God to we have no proof that god exists therefore god does not exist.

I don't see it as a cop-out. The other problem faced with science is that most think it's a set of rules, that somehow evolution only applies to us but not the universe, I might touch on that later.

OnTheWayOut: Agnosticism isn't just that (just like agnostic atheists), I also agree with 'I do know that the God's of man's creation are nonexistent. ' but this is also an agnostic, atheist and anti-theist view on religion. My point being Atheists don't know if a super being created the universe - that is an agnostic view- but when they say that therefore they have no reason to believe in it - is an atheist view and illogical.

Think about it, if I told you I have 5 broken laptops under my bed but you have never been to my house, you are not going to disbelieve me just because you can not prove it to yourself that I have five broken laptops, but you don't have to take my word for it either- a null hypothesis.

78

Atheism or Agnosticism, which one is correct?

by Joey Jo-Jo in

this has been bugging me for a while, and while i dont want to turn this into something about semantics i think that we should quickly define what an agnostic and atheists are.. richard dawkins defines 7 different types of atheist ranging from weak to militant atheists, but along these definitions there appears one definition with a strong resemblance to agnosticism.. to me an agnostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in deity/deities, but there are those who define agnostics as a ignorant who simply just don't care or don't have the intelligence to come to sound conclusion.. an atheist can be a person who disbelieves in a deity/deities based on the current mathematical and scientific understandings of the universe, as well as understandings that can refute certain religions such as the strong influence of protestantism christianity in america.. .

from here i will refer deity as anything ranging jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we dont know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be.. an argument that can be used about a deity is -we cannot prove nor disprove that god exists- this is referred to as a null hypothesis, an assumption that we cannot create a hypothesis to prove or disprove this deity.

this to me is agnosticism and is more correct than the idea of atheism.

Joey Jo-Jo

This has been bugging me for a while, and while I don’t want to turn this into something about semantics I think that we should quickly define what an agnostic and atheists are.

Richard Dawkins defines 7 different types of atheist ranging from weak to militant atheists, but along these definitions there appears one definition with a strong resemblance to agnosticism.

To me an agnostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in deity/deities, but there are those who define agnostics as a ignorant who simply just don't care or don't have the intelligence to come to sound conclusion.

An atheist can be a person who disbelieves in a deity/deities based on the current mathematical and scientific understandings of the universe, as well as understandings that can refute certain religions such as the strong influence of Protestantism Christianity in America.

From here I will refer deity as anything ranging Jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we don’t know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be.

An argument that can be used about a deity is -we cannot prove nor disprove that god exists- this is referred to as a Null Hypothesis, an assumption that we cannot create a hypothesis to prove or disprove this deity. This to me is agnosticism and is more correct than the idea of atheism. An atheist would say that there isn't sufficient evidence to suggest that any super being or a particular god created everything therefore believing in such would be illogical, indeed it would, they are right yet they don't see the logical fallacy that disbelieving is as well and that atheists commit by saying this and they make the mistake to assigned this null hypothesis deity/deities to a certain deity written and canonized in the bible. Wouldn't it be more logical to say I don't know.

3

How to explain cognitive dissonance without offending cults and religion.

by Joey Jo-Jo in

(this might offend smokers lol).

scenario 1. let's say you are aware that smoking is bad for you and addictive (element 1) so you dont smoke (element 2) - this is congnitive consonance (rational harmony).

scenario 2. let's say you are aware that smoking is bad for you and addictive (element 1) but you smoke anyway (element 2) = the mind's natural reaction to this irrational decision is to create anxiety with the person smoking, but the person wanting to continue to smoke will substitute this anxiety with a positive mental idea "well him old so i will probably never get cancer" or "i will quit when i reach my 30's" this irrational excuse (element 3) will substitute element 1 - this is cognitive dissonance..

Joey Jo-Jo

sizemik: Thx, was not aware, will look into it.

dgp: That is the truth, cognitive dissonance isn't just a cult thing, and one my have to tell a witness, not a good idea to say it directly.

This explanation was in a book that I am studying "Psychology" used in University.